Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oldest record

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conor Dary
    replied
    We had a thread on this years ago...

    https://trackandfieldnews.com/discus...ump%20Hinsdale

    Leave a comment:


  • Trickstat
    replied
    I think 2 possible reasons for the tendency of long jump records to last a long time are:

    1) While the runway surface has changed over the years which should help speedwise, you are still taking off from a simple wooden (or sometimes nowadays plastic?) board and then travelling through the air before landing.
    2) Unlike many other field events, there hasn't really been a major change in technique such as the flop, vaulting with a pole that bends, the shift and then spin in the shot etc. I think this is because there isn't scope for one because, at heart, it is a relatively simple event. Obviously, it isn't that simple in practice as shown by the difficulty many athletes have in repeating their best jumps.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    Very interesting thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post
    True! A recent decathlete from Afghanistan jumped 6.66m in 2016. I bet that messed with his mind.
    I would bet in Afghanistan that 666 does not have the same meaning it does in English speaking countries and he likely did not know what we think of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • noone
    replied
    Not anymore

    Originally posted by Powell View Post
    Peter O'Connor's WR from 1901 survived even longer as the Irish record - it was beaten in 1990 - after 89 years :!:
    now Cator really has the longevity record, 91 years !

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by LopenUupunut View Post
    The LJ isn't that bad; and the DT, while it would get demolished by most countries' national-level throwers, isn't completely hopeless either. Looking at the NCAA deca this year, 10 of 23 decathletes beat the LJ mark and 7 of 18 beat the DT mark (of course decathletes today tend to be speed-types rather than thrower types).
    True! A recent decathlete from Afghanistan jumped 6.66m in 2016. I bet that messed with his mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • LopenUupunut
    replied
    The LJ isn't that bad; and the DT, while it would get demolished by most countries' national-level throwers, isn't completely hopeless either. Looking at the NCAA deca this year, 10 of 23 decathletes beat the LJ mark and 7 of 18 beat the DT mark (of course decathletes today tend to be speed-types rather than thrower types).

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Found this yesterday thinking about the oldest national record. 1940 Afghanistan LJ 7.05m by Mohammed Anwar. He also jumped 12.99m TJ in the same year.

    Then there is the DT 39.90m in 1941 by Abdoul Hakim.

    Seems like if any athlete from here wanted three National records all they would have to do is -- do them. Ha!
    Last edited by proofs in the pudd'in; 06-07-2019, 06:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • berkeley
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    Haitian Record of 7.83 by Sylvio Cator in '28 is always a good place to start. I suspect if you mined a list of LJ marks you'd find a lot of ancient gems, since it's the event with the least change historically speaking.
    How is it that the depth of the 100 and the HJ have progressed so far and the LJ, not so much? Obviously it must be the event where natural talent counts the most, but why more than something like the 100? If we ascribe the 100's progress to faster tracks and more technical training methods, why not the same in the LJ?
    The LJ lends itself to big increments, since a record can be set on any jump. In the verticals, the bar has to be set at the record height, and jumpers rarely request more than the minimum increment of 1 cm. Of course this argument is inconsistent with the recent pattern of 100m improvements ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Frans Rutten
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    Haitian Record of 7.83 by Sylvio Cator in '28 is always a good place to start. I suspect if you mined a list of LJ marks you'd find a lot of ancient gems, since it's the event with the least change historically speaking.
    How is it that the depth of the 100 and the HJ have progressed so far and the LJ, not so much? Obviously it must be the event where natural talent counts the most, but why more than something like the 100? If we ascribe the 100's progress to faster tracks and more technical training methods, why not the same in the LJ?
    I wondered if your assumption was right.
    I grabbed the ATFS Annual concerning the 1979 season (3 decades ago).

    Comparing ATWL 1979 vs. 2009 (current) season

    Progression Level top-50 in 100m from 10.22 tot 9.97 = 0.25 = 2,45%.
    Progression Level top-50 in LJ from 8.10m to 8.38m = 0.28m = 3.46%.

    Progression of WRs in 100m from 9.95 (A) to 9,58 = 0.37 = 3.72%.
    Progression of WRs in LJ from 8.90 to 8.95 = 0.05 = 0.56%.

    So IMHO there's here an optical illusion at work. Bob Beamon is to blame.

    But in one aspect you're of cause right. Long Jumping is a natural ability.

    Due to much more effective training methods it's now much easier to surpass marks of Paavo Nurmi or runners of the era of Jesse Owens than to jump further than Jesse himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    We went over this topic a few years ago.

    http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?t=2992&

    Leave a comment:


  • Hano
    replied
    Originally posted by scottmitchell74
    This is a highly interesting thread.

    1:44.3 Peter Snell 17/12/1938 NZL Christchurch 03/02/1962.
    That's truly amazing. That's a great time still, and would not shame a fella at any meet, I'd think.


    I'm fascinated by the men's Field records all being 13 or more years old. Two of them are 23 years old!

    Is it lack of interest, simply the ebb & flow of sports, what? Are the best athletes who combine brute strength and explosiveness going into other sports?
    I think that when there is no "techonological" improvement (like in swimming) it is all about waiting until a "freak" talent arrives. Usain Bolt is such a freak talent. Bubka and Zelezny were freak talents in their events.

    Of course, a lot of interest in a special event helps to bring talent into the spot light. For example, these days nobody seems really interested in the mens hammer throw.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hano
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Haitian Record of 7.83 by Sylvio Cator in '28 is always a good place to start. I suspect if you mined a list of LJ marks you'd find a lot of ancient gems, since it's the event with the least change historically speaking.
    79 years old, thanks, amazing, btw on wiki I found the WR he set was 7.93.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    This is a highly interesting thread.

    1:44.3 Peter Snell 17/12/1938 NZL Christchurch 03/02/1962.
    That's truly amazing. That's a great time still, and would not shame a fella at any meet, I'd think.


    I'm fascinated by the men's Field records all being 13 or more years old. Two of them are 23 years old!

    Is it lack of interest, simply the ebb & flow of sports, what? Are the best athletes who combine brute strength and explosiveness going into other sports?

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Haitian Record of 7.83 by Sylvio Cator in '28 is always a good place to start. I suspect if you mined a list of LJ marks you'd find a lot of ancient gems, since it's the event with the least change historically speaking.
    Peter O'Connor's WR from 1901 survived even longer as the Irish record - it was beaten in 1990 - after 89 years :!:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X